Hidden Colors 2: The Triumph of Melanin

Details

Hidden Colors 2: The Triumph of Melanin
Directed by Tariq Nasheed
King Flex Entertainment
Opens December 7, Cinema Village

What has been hidden in doc Hidden Colors 2: The Triumph of Melanin is a whole global history of black accomplishment, and so Tariq Nasheed's film sets out to prove nothing less than the African origins of everything of worth in history, on a continent-by-continent basis: "Look at the Buddha's hair!" pronounces KRS-One with self-evident relish. The MC is one of a revolving cast of talking heads that includes Nasheed himself. A fair enough talker, Nasheed badly needs an editor; I say this not simply because his movie is two and a half hours long, but because he has a seeming total inability to separate gibble-gabble from revealed truth, vital social concern from talk about Chemtrails and digressive subchapters with titles like "The Hidden Truth About Santa Claus." Indeed, Nasheed seems incapable of waving off any conspiracy, be it regarding "the war on melanated people" (arguably real) or Shakespeare's authorship of the King James Bible (absolutely not), each point illustrated via Google-search images and Second Life computer graphics. There is exactly one interviewee here who is always fully in charge of sense and facts: the only woman, Michelle Alexander. Her well-reasoned discussion of the American penal system is compelling, but it's an embarrassment that she should be placed alongside the likes of Dr. Phil Valentine, a "metaphysician" whose malarkey about AIDS ("the so-called immunity system of the homosexual") is a low point, as is Umar Johnson's lionization of the late, unlamented Gaddafi and the odd nostalgia for segregation that runs throughout.

I find it interesting that they don't take issue with the information that was in the film, I guess because they couldn't refute it so they make it about everything else, typical white deflection tactics.

As Africans let's do ourselves a favor and stop looking to white/Europeans for 'credibility' and ' scientific guidelines.' White people will never find our work 'credible' because we don't work from the same basis. Whites work from the basis of the ends justify the means. (i.e. the ends is always to justify the superiority of the White race). So, they look to the credibility such as the White House, who we all knows lies and organizations like Monsanto, who we all knows steal for credibility. And, any African who writes a book, creates a new theory or unveils a piece of history must adhere to the 'credibility' of the White man. So, as Africans we do ourselves a great disservice by looking to their form of credibility to justify and define who we are. Word to the wise...they will NEVER hear them justify African greatness. It is against everything they stand for.

Its virtually impossible to find any 'white' scholarly source willing to admit to Hannibal's blackness. Instead terms are used like: of mixed Phoenician stock, Arab/Mediterranean, and North African. Someone even called him of Italian descent; not taking into account that many Italians share black African DNA also. But it doesn't take a scholar with even half a brain to figure out: someone who drove an army ofelephants was most likely NOT from Europe. Elephants in that part of the world are mostly found in Africa; sub-saharan Africa to be more precise.

Phoenicians, also called Caananites, were long considered to be descendents of Ham by ethnologists; Ham supposedly being the father of the Negro race. This classification of negroid and the so-calledbiblical curse of Ham by Noah was often used by scholars of the past for the justification of the enslavement and mistreatment of black Africans. And these books and records are easily identifiable to anyone willing to look for them. Here are a few:

White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812 (Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American Hist) Whitford, David Mark (2009),

"The Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era", Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Oct 21 BenjaminBraude,

"The Sons of Noah andthe Construction of Ethnic and Geographical Identities in the Medieval and EarlyModern Periods, "William and Mary Quarterly LIV (January 1997)

William McKee Evans, "From the Land of Canaan to the Land ofGuinea: The Strange Odyssey of the Sons of Ham,"American Historical Review 85 (February1980): 15–43

It took me less than 15 minutes to find these sources online. Whats YOUR excuse for not doing the same...if you genuinely seek the truth?

As for Tariq Bin Ziyad being black: again, one only has to dig a little to find this out. The ealiest references call him by the complete name of Tariq bin Abd 'Allah bin Wanamū al-Zanātī. The Zanati part of his name is the clue to his ethnicity. Zenati is an ethnic group from N. Africa made up of Numidians and Gaetulia people. Gaetulia people are associated with the Niger River and the Ethiopian frontier. And we all know Ethiopia means 'land of the burnt face people.' That doesn't leave much to conjecture, now does it.

And for those who like to say he was Arabian; its important to consider that several Arabian rulers were Ethiopians, most notibly Memnon and his brother Emathion, King of Arabia. Arabia itself was at one point part of the Ethiopian empire. You would do well to also read Dr. Frank Snowden's book 'Blacks in Antiquity', published by Harvard Press. The info is out there for anyone willing to follow the clues that lead to the obvious truth.

I guess it just hurts some white people to think they didn't invent or create as much as previously believed. More like borrowed and changed the names of thetrue creators. But careful about digging too deep for the truth. The deeper you dig, the blacker things get!

Tariq mentioned the article yesterday on his podcast, yet he didn't defend the movie. He basically was like : "Go see the movie, and don't let the media change your opinion"... That's messed up. I wish he would defend this article, yet he chose to ignore it. Kinda lame.

He did a Kickstarter for the first Hidden Colors. Tariq said that it was a success and that it's selling very good. So why do a Kickstarter for HC2? Why not use the money you've made on HC1 to create HC2?I like Tariq's stuff, but i don't support him with HC.

Presentation is what I am reading again and again. There is something called historical analysis. "If A then more than likely B occurred" that is accepted as " scholarly". However, I am quite sure that what is being sought is the stamp of credential of a "white" academic institution and or historian. One can reference the facts presented and research independently. But let us not discount historical analysis. That is what anyone does when researching historical facts. Many " scholarly" historians don't always agree on varied historical analysis. There is nothing wrong with the presentation of one or the other. One has to review the facts around the analysis and come to their own conclusion.

Who really cares about what Nick Pinkerton has to say? I know I don't.......in the time of Martin Luther King you had the same type of unwarranted critique of us and our stuff. Leave us alone Nicholas go critique Schindler list.

Mr. Nick Pinkerton,have you done the extensive research that Mr. Nasheed and his guest claim in the film? If not,nothing negative should be written about this documentary.Especially, if you haven't seen it yet! I've actually seen HC1 and done the research,and everything that Mr. Nasheed and his guest presented in that documentary is all "FACTS",so even if you don't like it,the truth is something that you have to respect.Especially,if it's backed with undeniable proof! If every nationality on this planet can tell their story,why can't black people? Instead of criticizing a documentary that i'm pretty sure you haven't seen besides watching trailer/clips,try to have an open mind,and try to understand where Mr. Nasheed and his guest are coming from,instead of being negative!

@abuasiya here are few books that you could read (but probably won't)you can start by visiting museums all across europe or you can read: the african origins of civilization

the destruction of black civilization

stolen legacy

ruins of the empire (admittedly hard to find as it was written in the 1700's and then banned for almost 2 centuries , written by a white slave owner who was good friends with Jefferson after he traveled to africa. just in case you're of the mindset that black scholars aren't credible)

Christianity before Christ

the iceman inheritance ( also by a white guy)

these will get you started, just understand that the deeper you travel down that rabbit hole the more dissapointed you're gonna get if you're white

if not for the fact i myself have read hundreds of books, received my degree in africana studies, perhaps i could just write off what he presents as conjecture and hyperbole.

but to be fair to your point. i've yet to see the new film since it's not out yet. so i can't defend it just yet. but i saw the film, much of what was presented can be verified. all one has to do is go to any library.

do you know the average black teenager knows nothing of black people's history prior to slavery!? in fact up until i got to college, i like most other american teens believed we were savages swinging on vines. then every black trivia month we're taught about the same negroes over and over ie..mlk, fred douglas etc.. mean while you got jews and arabs taking credit for everything of worth like the pyramids. the superior knowledge of the dogons is attributed to ancient aliens or europeans who somehow forgot the knowledge after they taught them!? this is the the stuff that is on the history channel. wheres the outcry for proof there?! where's this focus on the scientific method when these shows like america the history of us or the men who built this country, airs on national tv with no mention whatsoever of the 200+ years of forced labor.

no it's only when we step up to tell our own history instead of everyone else telling our history does it becomes a problem. so having said all of that i'll see the film friday and instead of naysayers basically dismissing the movie as a whole. you all can present what you have issues with and then we can have a debate. i read many critisizims of the film from folks who hadn't even seen the film which is typical when discussing the black presence and influence on human history

Using your own logic, can you not concede the possibility that the Black man is lying to you to fabricate a greater history just as the White man is lying to you to diminish Black history?

It is not an issue about race.
As the article mentions, Michelle Alexander presents great facts in the
new film. Valentine, on the other hand, has credentials and makes
statements that are beyond dubious.

Researchers of all ethnicities are quick to denounce the ridiculous studies you use as examples. My final point is that if you want to make a reasoned argument, you have to follow a standard methodology. If you are so certain that your claims are truthful, then they will not be disproved under any "rulebook". Again, researchers in acclaimed universities on every continent follow these methods, so why can't a filmmaker? Because he would not be able to make a film that connects his audience to every major historical accomplishment.

it was also accepted by white scholars that black people had tails, smaller brain mass, disposition to violence etc....all i'm saying is who gets to write that guidebook...and why then do they not follow it. black people have literally been written out of the history books. african accomplishment becomes attributed to alien intervention.

the the real issue is that most of this stuff can be followed up on and verified. the white scholars know this. those grave robbers that have been plundering Egypt and the rest of africa, know the truth too. the proof is sitting in museums and private collections all over the world...i for one believe that you should not believe anything people tell you, go seek it for yourself. for the truly objective the truth is there

@webster@Guest202@outlyer06 Clearly, there needs to be a methodology for historical research. Can we not agree on that? Otherwise, fiction becomes fact.

I love Tariq Nasheed's podcast, but his take on history sometimes is biased and not thoroughly researched. Hidden Colors 1 was just statement after statement presented as fact. Do you really believe that Nazis established a base on Antarctica? I have to disagree and call that a conspiracy theory. There is not one crumb of evidence to support such a claim.

@Guest202@outlyer06 The issue that people are having with this review is when it comes to African American projects such as the Hidden Colors series, whites like to pull out a different "rule book" (or a guest202 stated "a set of rules that everyone agrees to follow") to judge it by. Hidden Colors 1 was excellent.And most of the material is easily verifiable. Whites are quick to dismiss black history as "conspiracy theories",but will not criticize white owned networks like The History Channel which shows programs like "Ancient Aliens" and other non verifiable conspiracy theories.

@outlyer06 The
issue is that none of the sources you cite pass the muster of a
scientific method for natural history study. It is not that the
scholars lack credit because they are Black, rather it is an issue of
presenting facts without following guidelines that are considered
acceptable in scholarly discussion. That being said, we cannot expect
to have a rational, scholarly discussion if participants do not abide by
a set of rules that everyone agrees to follow.

One example in
Nasheed's first film: Valentine suggested that the Big Ben clock tower
was believed to be named after Benjamin Banneker. There absolutely no
evidence to support this claim nor any that can be found. If this one
dubious example was presented as somewhat factual, how can any other
claim be taken at face value?

No one can deny the contributions of
Africans and Blacks, but there is some validity to this article's point
that conspiracy theories juxtaposed with solidly researched data waters
down the content of the film.